Sherman's Cowlick

Enough already

The Blago trial (round 1 I assume) finally wrapped up this week with some attention being paid to jury selection.  Based on what has leaked out, it seems verdicts on many of the counts were hung on the vote of just one juror.  From what little has come out so far, it seems critical thinking was not one of this person's strong points.  Having recently been called for jury duty myself, I have a new found distrust of the jury selection process.  Here is my experience...

Upon receiving notice, I informed my software engineering co-workers of my "calling" to which they assured me it was highly unlikely that I would be selected.  The perception being, based on experience I presume, that as soon as the attorneys involved hear the word "engineer", they put you on the well-thanks-anyway list. 

After sitting most of the morning in the larger jury pool waiting area, I was called as one of eighteen potential jurors of which seven would be selected for what would be a criminal trial.  Given the considerable waiting time, I naturally was curious as to the nature of the crime involved in the trial for which I might be selected.  Speculation as to the kind of crime involved led to speculation as to the amount of time the trial would take.  Murder or some complicated embezzlement scheme or such could potentially take weeks.  Assuming, of course, that my co-workers were wrong and I did get selected.  As we entered the court room, taking one look at the defendant, who obviously was the defendant since he was the only civilian not wearing a suit and tie, a middle aged man of sunburned complexion, I says to myself, "DUI.   This won't take long."

As we were seated in a specific order, my lucky 6' 4" frame was awarded the spot outside the jury box and directly in front of the podium from which the defense and prosecutors would speak, with all but two of the other jurors seated behind me.  The judge then informed us that this was a case of BUI, boating under the influence.  After identifying ourselves, occupations, hobbies, the usual etc. we were each asked to state if we never drink, drink occasionally, or drink frequently.  The lady next to me spoke first, stating that she was not a drinker.  Next was my turn.  Given that I have a drink or two three or four times a week, I wasn't comfortable saying I was an "occasional" drinker since to my engineering mind, occasional means only drinking on occasion.  On the other hand, "frequent" sounded more like "daily" and rather alcoholic, so I nuanced my answer to "occasional-to-frequent".   Well, this put me at the top of the drinking class in this pool.  The remaining sixteen people answered either "never" or "occasional"...including the two college students and the "highly regarded drummer in a (heavy) metal band".  At this point I became much more aware of my seating arrangement and that the chair I was in was adjusted for someone of less than average size.  Moderately-introverted-I begins to slouch...

The judge makes a point concerning the testimony of police officers, that their being an officer of the law should not make their version of the facts carry any more weight than that of anyone else.  The prosecuting attorney now steps up to the podium and begins his voir dire.  After some questions about knowledge of boats and boating, the possible understanding of the meaning of "having your sea legs", and sundry other minor subjects, Mr. Prosecutor points out that we live in an average county, one that doesn't have all the fancy law enforcement bells and whistles like on TV's CSI.  He then asks, "Does anyone have a concern about trying a case solely on testimonial evidence?"  Methinks, they have no breathalyzer test.  This is why this case is even in court.  Well being a skeptic of eye witness testimony, "Yes" I says.  Mr. P, looking directly down at me asks, "What if a murder was committed.  A person walks into a room and shoots another one dead, picks up the bullet casings, and walks out.  There is just one eye-witness to this crime.  What then?"  To which I reply, "Well, you've got a dead body with a bullet in it, so you know a crime was committed".  Mr. P immediately changes the subject to the making of peanut butter and jelly sandwiches.  Well, needless to say, I didn't get selected.  A couple of other jurors had spoken up on other questions they were asked, mostly on the subject of alcohol consumption, of which a couple were either adamantly opposed to or had negative opinions of.

Now  of course, the raw odds of being selected were still 7/18, which is just less than 40%.  Given that three or four people were non-drinkers, the odds would still be about 50-50, so my not being selected could conceivably have been a random outcome.  But when combined with my co-workers observations, I am rather suspicious that possession of a degree of critical thinking makes one less likely to be selected.  Yet it would seem that critical thinking is exactly the sort of skill at least some on a jury should be comfortable with.  With gobs of money to be spent on juror analysis for a high profile case in Chicago, do you suppose the rules are different there?

Experts

Today's Wall Street Journal had a couple of interesting articles about Jane Goodall's study of the chimpanzees of Gombe National Park.  She was originally sent there when working as an assistant to anthropologist Louis Leakey.  He was excavating hominid fossils in Kenya and was seeking a better understanding of the way early human species behaved.  Goodall's lack of formal training and/or a doctorate degree seems to have helped her to make discoveries that were overlooked by those who did have formal training.  Obviously she had learned much via her informal training with Dr. Leakey, however I find the following excerpt interesting:

Part of her success sprang from the fact that she wasn't a trained scientist. Field observations of great apes were long characterized by their Blumenbach-like sense of human superiority. When researchers startled the animals into threat displays, they assumed such behavior was simply an indicator of mindless fury. But Jane Goodall didn't carry that baggage with her. So she made a simple decision—the kind that looks brilliant in retrospect—that she would try to observe as unobtrusively as possible and would make up her mind based on what she saw.

Of course there was and is much to criticize concerning her approach.  She wasn't quite as unobtrusive as the article indicates.  She baited study areas with food, possibly effecting behavior patterns.  She also gave the individual troop members names instead of numbers, thus anthropomorphizing them.  Still, she made some very significant insights into a non-human species.  A slight parallel, while Albert Einstein was trained as a physicist, I found it interesting that he made his earliest breakthroughs while working at the Swiss patent office.  Of course my cherry-picked samples size of two is quite weak, but I wonder could it be that education, like religion, works best when kept at an arm's length?

art, its value, and nero

Questioning the value of art in our lives is akin to one questioning the divinity of Jesus barely more than a generation ago.  As read in most pedestrian discourse on the subject, especially in regard to public funding for such, the prevailing attitude seems to be that art is what makes us human.  Or even what raises us above being human, "Art and the humanities".  The observation being that the more oppressive the society, the more repression of art.  Modern Islamic fundamentalism frowns upon most artistic efforts, even going so far as to oppose, to the point of violence, artistic portrayals of its most revered prophet.

To oppose public funding of the arts, or to question its value, is to open oneself to being considered a philistine.  As if all art, and pursuit of all art, is a fundamental "good".  Yet take for example, the ancient Roman emperor Nero.  Here was a man who considered himself to be a great artist, who valued the arts, probably as a consequence of the former, and who spent tremendous sums on palaces that were architecturally ground breaking in their aesthetics.  He himself gave, what shall we call it....command performances.  Some critics of the time apparently gave these presentations the ultimate raspberry.  But on the other hand he was quite popular, or so we are told. He did have a penchant for attention and exaltation. Indeed to his last breath, which many historians report to be “Qualis artifex pereo; What an artist dies in me!".   But such is the perception of many artists.  And yet the man was a tyrant, murdering those who got in his way, including his own mother, kicked his wife to death while she was pregnant, and castrated his boy-lover.  Of course this is not to say he wasn't sensitive.

And I might also add, the motivating essence behind Godwin's Law was himself an artist.  Possessed an appreciation for architecture and opera.  And yes, I note the irony of having violated Godwin's right off the bat.  Can't resist overkill, I suppose.

So while I greatly appreciate art, and absorb as much of it as I can, I question its absolute value.  Perhaps it just exists, apologies to Reggie Jackson, as a straw to stir the drink that is progress.  Or perhaps it is only a drink.  Could it just be cultural alcohol?

Happy 234th

The Weddells are a western Pennsylvania family, a couple of whom fought in the Revolutionary War, hence the restored grave markers.  Don't know much more about them, except that our families shared the same small cemetery outside of Pittsburgh.  After 200 years of rest, they deserve a little web time.  George Washington spent some time in the area during the French & Indian war, which I suppose is the etymology of Mt. Washington overlooking Pittsburgh.

As the saying goes, have a fifth on The Fourth...and since Monday is a holiday for most, a quart on the fifth to top it off...

Chipmunk funk

This is a chipmunk:

 
This is Florida Attorney General and Gubernatorial candidate Bill McCollum:

or better yet, when I first encountered him:

Don't let the suit, tie, and glasses deceive you.  It's those beady eyes that give the species away.  God, am I shallow...but bear with me here...

Posted this as a comment at Protein Wisdom, which I've been reading incorrectly as Protean Wisdom, which I think sounds cooler if not more um, "liberal".  But anyway...in Florida we have a new guy, idunno something Scott, running for governor vs. the GOP MOR chipmunk lookalike Bill McCullom (McCollum/McWhatever). Scott ran all kinds of cool anti-washington, fiscal conservative ads and I was looking forward to voting for him. The Chipmunk hit back with mud concerning Scott’s healthcare company being fined for fraud, but I wrote that off as the usual politico fact-based BS. Because I ONCE gave money to ONE politico, Guiliani’s presidential campaign, I am on some sort of GOP mailing list. Well one of the 'benefits" of this is that a couple weeks ago I started getting junk mail from Scott’s campaign about abortion. He then starts sending out crap about how he’s opposed to stem cell research. Stupid. Not every freaking thing that a person believes, not every freaking principle that a person has, is a campaign issue for every freaking office. Stupid, stupid, stupid politically. And this after polls are showing Rubio trailing that worthless POS might-as-well-be-a-democrat Crist. I like Rubio, mostly because he’s not grandstanding on the “A” word, even though it’s more of a senatorial issue than a governor one.  I'm sure he believes similarly as Scott, but then again the Senate campaign is staying quiet until the D's sort out their side of the ticket.  However, now the Chipmunk is hitting back by pointing out that Scott’s companies paid hospitals to do abortions. Stupid. This is why GOP will lose. Not because they lack principles (OK, guys like Crist & the Chipmunk do), but because they can’t limit their campaigns to issues the voters care about. If they can’t limit themselves, how can we expect them to limit government?

Am reminded of a bit I recall reading in Mad Magazine, which I had to hide from my parents like some sort of girlie rag, that went something like this:

Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum were running for the house
When Tweedle Dum smeared Tweedle Dee by calling him a louse
Said Tweedle Dee, “since Tweedle Dum has raised this vicious stink,”
“Tweedle Dum”, says Tweedle Dee, “is nothing but a fink”
“Tweedle Dee”, said Tweedle Dum, “that’s a nasty thing to say”
Then whispered to a columnist that Tweedle Dee was gay
Now I hear that Tweedle Dum was spotted at an orgy
To hell with both, election day I’ll write in Georgie Porgie.

To make matters worse, as I was enjoying my day off yesterday, just as I was drifting off to a well earned nap after a morning of working like a mad dog in the sun, I get a machine-generated phone call from another Republican "inviting" me to a picnic.  Oh, yeah, I'm going to that.  Then this afternoon, whilst watching the World Cup pregame I get another machine call, this time from Mark Rubio.  What makes these idiots think this is a good marketing plan?  At least junk mail doesn't interrupt my day.

Going into a voting booth is like walking through a crowd of pickpockets.  While you're guarding your front pockets, they pick your back.  Watch your back, they pick your front.  And it's not just your money that they're after.

Keyser Söze and the Universal Contrarian

Carrying over from Moral Darwinism...I often question the existence of God, yet I rarely doubt the existence of Satan.  According to most religious and/or moral rationalizations of the fundamental nature of the universe is that the universe is good and man is bad.  The religions I am most familiar with imply a benevolent, or at worst, indifferent Creator/Tender versus an in-Adam's-fall-we-sinned-all-lower-case-m man.  But what if that is the big fraud?  What if the universe itself is a manifestation of evil?  Consider the reality that in respect to all we can possibly know, every living thing that has ever existed has died or will die.  This is a fundamental law of the universe.  Death being universally acknowledged by all sentient beings as a bad thing, to be avoided by cockroaches, meth addicts, and BP CEOs.  As far as we know, the only creature to make any serious proactive attempt to stop death and the only creature to have had any success at postponing death is man.  Perhaps it was a mistake/oversight/flaw made by the evil universe that unintentionally allowed humans to develop this skill.  Man has been pushing back against the universe his entire existence.  Perhaps man-good fighting universe-bad.

There are times when evil is done, but you can make some sense out of it.  It works to the advantage of the perpetrator, either to satisfy the perp's desire or because evil was the path of least resistance.  But then there are those instances where evil is done for little to no gain for the evil doer, like simple vandalism, or where the effort involved far exceeds the payoff, like stealing copper tubing from an AC unit on a miserably hot rooftop.  Seems to me it would be easier to flip burgers in a much cooler kitchen.  Of course the argument goes that such people can't think that far ahead.  OK, evil is a stretch in these instances, but these things are certainly on the liabilities side of the Great Ledger.

I suppose the argument goes that the BTK Killer got enough of a thrill out of his actions to justify the considerable efforts he went through to carry them off.  But it's really a rather recursive argument and there's no way to know for sure except by the fact that it happened.  Ipso facto.  On the other hand, maybe he didn't get much of a thrill.  Maybe his evil was just a bubble of the evil universe leaking through the generally better fabric of man.

Tongue in cheek or not...

Darwinian morality, etc, etc.

Discussion currently going on at The Philosophy Magazine, supposedly asking the question: Do the actions of the Israeli navy blockade of Gaza constitute piracy.  Of course it did not take long for the discussion to descend into a fit of Israel bashing. Some called it an illegal act of war instead of an act of piracy.  The usual Israeli bashing from the usual quarters with little-to-zip interest in using reason or logic to make one's case.  In the process of trying to get the subject back on track, one commenter raised the subject of moral philosophy vis-a-vis The Golden Rule.  This struck a chord with a few commenters, but of course the subject again got sidetracked by discussion of what "wretched" people the Israelis are, yadda-yadda-yadda.  A friend...we'll call him Uncle Jed...suggested I could host a discussion here and (hopefully) leave the politics there.  Well, let's give it a try.

To get the discussion started, I will reproduce here the relevant issues that led to this subject's title.  I have tried to select/edit the minimal comments necessary to get the feeling of the discussion.  If something doesn't look or sound right, check the link for the full context. Feel free to diverge in the context of philosophy so long as your ideas remain relevant, but please refrain from...well, the sort of illogical nonsense that drove the discussion here in the first place...

• Most people will have a good idea of what is right and wrong and for most people, all of these ideas are similar. Hence we have the common labeling of actions as ‘good’ and ‘evil’ and so on and so on. I merely suggest, although I personally would prefer to live like a heavenly saint helping the poor etc, that perhaps someone doing ‘evil’ has as much of right to think that it is correct as we do to think otherwise as long as there is no form of ‘natural’ law stating that such is wrong. In my mind, the correct thing to do is to help others because this is mutually beneficial and a kind act. I am far happier being kind than not. But at what point can we declare boundaries between right and wrong to which all must adhere? If more people want to be ‘good’ than ‘evil’, does this mean that ‘good’ has some form of natural basis and thus is correct? The golden rule is all very well, but is it not just the majority labeling their beliefs and not necessarily a basis for moral decisions? I would say that people should be ‘good’ and kind, but should we not first decide whether this is somehow naturally right or simply most people trying to enforce their own views on the rest of the world? I would prefer the former…
  With ethnicity, I see every person as having equal opportunity and equal human rights as I prefer having civilized society and want people to be happy. The question is: could someone be somehow justified for wanting the opposite?

  [sorry about the stupidly long posts and numerous rhetorical questions]

  Posted by Sleuth | June 8, 2010, 2:39 pm

• Sleuth,
  I would suggest that the concepts of right and wrong come from their track records for successfully perpetuating the societies in which they are valued. A natural Darwinian morality. For example, the value of helping the poor is to help the greater society grow and prosper by turning a social burden into a social asset. The result of this being a greater propagation of the idea that helping the poor is a worthy effort.

  Posted by Uncle Jed | June 8, 2010, 3:48 pm

• Re: Anna-Marina | June 8, 2010, 11:43 am
  The Golden Rule: “Do not do unto others as you would that they should do unto you.”

  I have never found a version of the Golden Rule which covers all contingencies.

  This particular one looks defective to me.
  For instance I would that others should render me first aid in the event of an accident. It seems to follow that I must not render first aid to others in the event they have an accident.

  Again “do to others what you would like to be done to you”
  Problems can arise here where people of different sexual orientations are concerned. My tastes generally may not be the same as yours.

  And again “do not do to others what you would not like to be done to you”

  I would not like to be buried in the ground when I die but others would, so I would be out of order in arranging a cremation for them? This seems somewhat heartless.

  Posted by Don Bird | June 8, 2010, 5:04 pm

• Uncle Jed provides an interesting view about Darwinian morality. I wonder: are we all happy to agree that the basic ‘law’ at the beginning of this is something along the lines of survival of the fittest?
  Are we happy to accept that our condemnation of Israel’s actions, if indeed we do condemn their actions, is simply due to our societies being more powerful and thus dictating what is right and wrong?
  I am not suggesting that laws are incorrect or that they should not be obeyed, only that we consider their real basis and not create some notion of them forming a basis for making decisions on their own. I believe that laws are excellent for maintaining a good society etc. etc. Yet when I consider orgins, popular society in general seems less richeous. Surely if the principle rule is survival of the fittest, our current sense of what is morally right and wrong should cause us to condemn ourselves for exploiting others, by using our power to force action.

  Posted by Sleuth | June 9, 2010, 5:41 am

• I know I am adding virtually nothing to the essence of this discussion and probably dwelling on a trivial point. However if “do not harm others” is the Golden Rule then we were wrong to slaughter all those Germans in the second world war and also to conspire to Assassinate Hitler. Similarly, I am wrong to break the wrist of the man threatening my wife with a knife.

  Posted by Don Bird | June 9, 2010, 6:16 am

Canadian words for an American holiday

In Flanders Fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses row on row,
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.

We are the Dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders fields.

Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow

In Flanders fields.

Above poem, as I'm sure we all know (cough-cough), by Lt. Col. John McCrae, a field surgeon in the Canadian artillery...in what was originally known as The Great War...little did they know.  Article in yesterday's Parade Magazine concerning the efforts of the last WWI veteran to establish a national memorial was interesting.  Though brick and stone would be hard pressed to match what our Canadian friend has written.  Odd that nearly a century has passed and we don't have a WWI memorial on the national mall.  Was told by my father that once upon a time in America, people wore poppies, or a facsimile there of, on Memorial Day.  I don't think that I have ever seen such in all my years.   Odd.

Another odd thing and apropos of nothing (I think), wife received a DVD of the movie Julie & Julia as a Christmas gift from my sister.  We just got around to watching it last night, as penance for my watching The Godfather for the upteenth time last weekend.  Meryl Streep was very good and actually quite funny.  But a major distraction, for me, was the completely unnecessary political editorializing.  And of course, this being Hollywood, they were lefty political comments.  Why must  beef bourguignon have a politics?

Now is that with a big G or a little g?

NBC's Dateline this Sunday related the tale of the MTS Oceanos' final voyage.  Full video available at NBC's site here.  In August of 1991, after taking on water in 30-foot seas the ship's generators were shut down to prevent them from shorting and starting a fire. Without power, the ship was left at the mercy of a significant storm in shark-infested waters.  Over 500 passengers were then abandoned by most of the crew, leaving the guitar player from the band and the cruise director effectively in charge.  The cruise director related the story of her first meeting the captain before the cruise.  The captain, one Yiannis Avranas, insisted that she address him as "God" (I presume the big G).  Egotistical jackass thoughts aside, once the story was told I began to understand where he was coming from. 

That ship was entirely the captain's domain.   He was responsible for the condition it was in, what direction it would take, and how far it would go.  If there were flaws, it was his responsibility to fix them before the passengers showed up.  It would be unreasonable to expect passengers to be ship builders or sailors.  Yes, they needed to understand what the safety procedures were and to take reasonable care of what personal dangers that they could reasonably discern, but the overall state of the ship before their arrival and during their trip was the captain's end of the deal.  They paid their fare.  They were expecting to enjoy themselves and leave their general welfare in the hands of the captain and his crew.  Ship starts sinking, yadda-yadda-yadda, the crew is gone with the better life rafts, since they knew how to operate them.  The captain is catatonic and then disappears.  He is next seen pushing his way through the other passengers to be evacuated via helicopter, supposedly so he can "help" run the evacuation from the safety of dry land.  He's had his suffering and he's all done now.  He states later, "When I give the order abandon ship, it doesn't matter what time I leave. Abandon is for everybody. If some people want to stay, they can stay."  How conveeenient, as The Church Lady would say.

The most of the follow-up stories that I could find from that time point out that the captain really had no legal responsibility.  Time Magazine related "Avranas' 'crime' was failing to fit the mold of tradition".  Apologists know no shame.

No doubt, this analogy has its flaws, but it is something to consider.  Maybe from a Judaic perspective...

Malamanteau or Where Have You Gone Samuel Beckett

Interesting (well, to me anyway) Wiki war going on in regard to the following XKCD comic:

 

It appears this word/concept was never real until the publication of this cartoon.  I think it just it may be remembered as a "genius" invention that anticipated the need for a placeholder name to describe the absurdities of a society that is simultaneously drowning in rules and yet rejecting playing by them.  Perhaps to illustrate the point, perhaps for the shear fun of it, either fans of XKCD or perhaps even its creator himself created a real Wikipedia entry for this word.  The ensuing debate has raged for the last couple of days, originally on an entry that referred back to the Wiki XKCD comic's entry.  That page appears to have been deleted and the debate continues here.  I encourage a read if you enjoy the works of Samuel Beckett and such.  One of the lines of reasoning is that the entry is legitimate based upon the discussion generated about the entry's legitimacy...which of course would not exist were it not for the stink being raised by those insisting on the entry's legitimacy.  Circles in a spiral like a wheel within a wheel...or angels on the head of a pin.  But such is what you open yourself up for when you open yourself up.  Parallels to Open Source software would of course just be silly...No rules, just right...